Its pretty emphatic that U106 is much older in the NE of Europe than in Germany/Holland/Demark/England. It seems an open shut case. If we assume U106 in the NE is around 4-5000 years old then that would fit a pattern of it being holed up there and only arriving extending into the west in the Iron Age.

However, ther above table record the journey west of U106. It doesnt record the journey that took it to Estonia and Poland in the first place. The only conclusion I can see is there is no such trail because the U106 SNP didnt exist when the lineage moved there. It was still an L11* line when it arrived there and the U106 SNP occurred in-situ in the NE of Europe. If I recall correctly there is a small L11* concentration along the Baltic is roughly the same sort of area where U106 SNP most likely occurred.[/quote]

Moving on from the apparent holing up of U106 in the east until late, I find it almost too much of a coincidence that U106 expanded west around the time the Germanic shifts happened. I have wondered for a long time about the tribes like Cimbri and Teutones with their possibly Celtic names and the Celtic names of their chiefs etc. Old style analysis based on the idea of Hallstatt/La Tene=Celtic tended to play down the possibility of the Celtic nature of those tribes. However if the Celtic language spread long pre-dates this then I dont think this arguement is so sound. If you think about it if U106 was stranded far to the east rather late on as variance suggests then the remaining R1b in what is north Germanic Europe may have been largely of the P312 type and perhaps of relates to a period when the R1b connection was largely with the west. Although this may be hard to square with current archaeological interpretations, it seems a heck of a coincidence to me that the expansion of U106 west coincides with the evolution of Germanic and its period of expansion. I am very tempted to think that back in the beaker period and into the early and mid Bronze Age that what is now north Germanic Europe could have featured a dialect of the Celto-Italic branch (most likely Celtic or something similar).

This had all sorts of complex links and included a related possibly offshoot culture in east-central Germany, the House Urn culture. As you can see from the link (although it is Wiki so handle with care!) the culture did include Poland, Slovakia and extended into parts of east-central Germany too (Probably originating in Poland). The culture has never been identified convincingly with any ethno-linguistic group. Of course it is only towards its end that its period overlaps with the Germanic language as the latter simply didnt exist prior to the language shifts. I notice the idea of pre-German is being used a lot these days but exactly what and where that was is an open question. Clearly the expansion phase of Germanic appears to best coincide with the expansion of both Jastorf culture and U106 further west. However, all the components involved in the genesis of Jastorf are a little vague and probably multiple. What I think may have given a hypothetical Lusatian/House Urn U106 element importance is they belonged to a far wealthier and trade orientated culture compared to those of most of Germany, Scandinavia etc. Certainly a home in the Lusatian culture for U106 followed by incorporation within the Jastorf best fits the variance element.

The East of Germany sample is 58, large enough for all the countries but not really enough to break it down. Hobbyists have said before that the variance of U106 is highest in Poland though.

Looking at these two results, it seems western European U106 is about 2/3rds of the variance of eastern U106. So if U106 is aprox 4,000 years old, it's movement in western Europe would be sometime between 2500-3000 years ago.

Looking at the wiki article, it says the culture you mentioned had links with both the Nordic Bronze and the Halstatt cultures. I've heard it said U106 has a hotspot around Austria ; maybe links with these regions brought U106 to both?

The East of Germany sample is 58, large enough for all the countries but not really enough to break it down. Hobbyists have said before that the variance of U106 is highest in Poland though.

Looking at these two results, it seems western European U106 is about 2/3rds of the variance of eastern U106. So if U106 is aprox 4,000 years old, it's movement in western Europe would be sometime between 2500-3000 years ago.

Yes I think that sort of date actually makes a lot of sense. Interesting that it implies that U106 was not present in Scandinavia until that sort of expansion

I heard the Austrian variance is low so its probably best explained by the arrival of Germanics there.

This late expansion does raise the question of the yDNA landscape in places like Holland, north Germany and Scandinavia prior to 1000BC. I have also heard L21 is not exactly high in variance either in those areas and U152 is not common either. It is hard to image that zone back before 1000BC but it would seems on the surface to me that R1b was not especially common there.

It does also raise the question of the origin of the Germanic language and U106. U106 seems to be the major success story of the expansion of Germanic east YET it seems to have commenced moving from an fairly easterly position (east of the core Nordic Bronze Age area) in or even after 1000BC if the variance is an indicator.

The East of Germany sample is 58, large enough for all the countries but not really enough to break it down. Hobbyists have said before that the variance of U106 is highest in Poland though. Looking at these two results, it seems western European U106 is about 2/3rds of the variance of eastern U106. So if U106 is aprox 4,000 years old, it's movement in western Europe would be sometime between 2500-3000 years ago.

Yes I think that sort of date actually makes a lot of sense. Interesting that it implies that U106 was not present in Scandinavia until that sort of expansion I heard the Austrian variance is low so its probably best explained by the arrival of Germanics there. This late expansion does raise the question of the yDNA landscape in places like Holland, north Germany and Scandinavia prior to 1000BC. I have also heard L21 is not exactly high in variance either in those areas and U152 is not common either. It is hard to image that zone back before 1000BC but it would seems on the surface to me that R1b was not especially common there. It does also raise the question of the origin of the Germanic language and U106. U106 seems to be the major success story of the expansion of Germanic east YET it seems to have commenced moving from an fairly easterly position (east of the core Nordic Bronze Age area) in or even after 1000BC if the variance is an indicator.

Quoting from the Wiki article on Pre-Roman Iron Age:"The cultural change that ended the Bronze Age was affected by the expansion of Hallstatt culture from the south and accompanied by a deteriorating climate, which caused a dramatic change in the flora and fauna. In Scandinavia, this period is often called the Findless Age due to the lack of finds. While the finds from Scandinavia are consistent with a loss of population, the southern part of the culture, the Jastorf culture, was in expansion southwards. It consequently appears that the climate change played an important role in the southward expansion of the tribes, considered Germanic, into continental Europe."I wonder what impact this depopulation (and later repopulation) of Scandinavia might have on the variance measures of current U106 - any thoughts?

The East of Germany sample is 58, large enough for all the countries but not really enough to break it down. Hobbyists have said before that the variance of U106 is highest in Poland though.

Looking at these two results, it seems western European U106 is about 2/3rds of the variance of eastern U106. So if U106 is aprox 4,000 years old, it's movement in western Europe would be sometime between 2500-3000 years ago.

Yes I think that sort of date actually makes a lot of sense. Interesting that it implies that U106 was not present in Scandinavia until that sort of expansion

I heard the Austrian variance is low so its probably best explained by the arrival of Germanics there.

This late expansion does raise the question of the yDNA landscape in places like Holland, north Germany and Scandinavia prior to 1000BC. I have also heard L21 is not exactly high in variance either in those areas and U152 is not common either. It is hard to image that zone back before 1000BC but it would seems on the surface to me that R1b was not especially common there.

It does also raise the question of the origin of the Germanic language and U106. U106 seems to be the major success story of the expansion of Germanic east YET it seems to have commenced moving from an fairly easterly position (east of the core Nordic Bronze Age area) in or even after 1000BC if the variance is an indicator.

To me, it looks like a nice alignment of proto-Germanic and U106. I'm not saying I1 or R1a1 did not play an important role as well though.

The Jastorf had influence from the south, whatever "influence" means, but that is Hallstat Celt they are talking about. P312* (maybe DF27) was in this mix. So would Hallstat's influence have accounted for P312* (maybe DF27) in Jastorf or would that be U106 coming up from the south. ... or was U106 coming from the east and old Globular Amphora territories. I don't think U106 was coming from the north. It's diversity is too low there. That must be I1 and maybe R1a1 and maybe even some R-P312* (maybe DF27) from the north.

The East of Germany sample is 58, large enough for all the countries but not really enough to break it down. Hobbyists have said before that the variance of U106 is highest in Poland though.

Looking at these two results, it seems western European U106 is about 2/3rds of the variance of eastern U106. So if U106 is aprox 4,000 years old, it's movement in western Europe would be sometime between 2500-3000 years ago.

Yes I think that sort of date actually makes a lot of sense. Interesting that it implies that U106 was not present in Scandinavia until that sort of expansion

I heard the Austrian variance is low so its probably best explained by the arrival of Germanics there.

This late expansion does raise the question of the yDNA landscape in places like Holland, north Germany and Scandinavia prior to 1000BC. I have also heard L21 is not exactly high in variance either in those areas and U152 is not common either. It is hard to image that zone back before 1000BC but it would seems on the surface to me that R1b was not especially common there.

It does also raise the question of the origin of the Germanic language and U106. U106 seems to be the major success story of the expansion of Germanic east YET it seems to have commenced moving from an fairly easterly position (east of the core Nordic Bronze Age area) in or even after 1000BC if the variance is an indicator.

To me, it looks like a nice alignment of proto-Germanic and U106. I'm not saying I1 or R1a1 did not play an important role as well though.

The Jastorf had influence from the south, whatever "influence" means, but that is Hallstat Celt they are talking about. P312* (maybe DF27) was in this mix. So would Hallstat's influence have accounted for P312* (maybe DF27) in Jastorf or would that be U106 coming up from the south. ... or was U106 coming from the east and old Globular Amphora territories. I don't think U106 was coming from the north. It's diversity is too low there. That must be I1 and maybe R1a1 and maybe even some R-P312* (maybe DF27) from the north.

Its a shame that DF27/Z196 were not yet available when the Old Norway study took place. Surely if they found SRY2627 and M153 up there, they can find some DF27 hiding in that P312. Of course theres still the more Norse-esque L238 and the Germanic-esque DF19 to consider. Though I'd still say DF27 would make an impact, however small. If I'm not mistaken didn't SRY2627 outnumber both U152 and L21 in one region.. seems like it was Blekinge? Leaving the remaining P312* open to interpretation.

U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.

Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.

Adding population bottlenecks to that as well, it would make the variance even less reliable?In fact i think every area used in these variance calculations should be investigated (in terms of known history) for repeated migrations like that and population bottlenecks. I guess it would be good to know which are more reliable in terms of variance. I don't know if this has already been done?

U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.

Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.

The pan-European variance cline is pretty clear to me the SNP appeared first in the east, stayed there a long time and then expanded (mainly to the west). I think the main question it poses is the genesis of the Jastorf culture and the Germanic expansion. U106's expansion into the west seems to coincide (and therefore contribute to) the Jastorf culture even though it seems to have been most likely in the Lusatian culture zone to the east of the Nordic Bronze Age. U106 doesnt seem to just be a minor addition. You could argue U106's expansion was one of the main drivers of Jastorf and the Germanic ethnogenesis and expansion. As far as I understand Lustian culture was far more advanced and well connected than that to their west. U106 is potentially the main common yDNA denomenator of the Germanic peoples. I think U106 could potentially mean archaeologists may have to have a rethink about the origins of Jastorf and the Germanic expansion. The expansion of U106 seems to have been very important.

Of course Germanic has often been seen as a peculiar branch of IE with a lot of words with a lack of cognates and the need for torturous derivations to yield IE parallels. There has been talk of a mix of centum and saetem charachteristics, hybriding, substrates and all sorts of strange aspects of Germanic (which linguists bicker a lot over). Perhaps the U106 extension into the old core Nordic Bronze Age areas to the west around the time of the genesis of the Jastorf culture is a factor. Soem of the crucial shifts in the creation of Germanic are dated to the end of the Bronze Age around the same sort of time. One things seems clear is that U106 from a late start seems to have throrougly penetrated the later Germanic speaking areas of Europe in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age but was apparently not present before this. Its success that seems to run in tandem with the expansion of Germanic languages does seem to imply it was at the top end of the Germanic social strata in some way. So, I wonder if the importance of influences and people coming from the south Baltic in the later Bronze and Iron Ages has been very much underestimated in terms of the Germanic linguistic ethnogenesis. Interestingly, the Lusatians, must have been relatively close to Baltic and even Finnic speakers were not too far away beyond and of course Celts to the south. I am not sure what linguists would read into an important intrusion from the south Baltic in late Prehistory. It might actually explain quite a lot but I am not in a position to say how that fits in with the general feeling on the early origins of Germanic and its early contacts.

U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.

Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.

Adding population bottlenecks to that as well, it would make the variance even less reliable?In fact i think every area used in these variance calculations should be investigated (in terms of known history) for repeated migrations like that and population bottlenecks. I guess it would be good to know which are more reliable in terms of variance. I don't know if this has already been done?

Although I do think that there must be some evidence of a major bottleneck in the right area and time for that to be a major issue. I once had a discussion with Ken N on this and he seemed to feel that while it needs to be factored into area where the population was extremely low that the terms gets misused and over-applied. Its less likely to have a true population bottleneck in the sort of period U106 etc was around in Europe which was well settled by then. it works better in situations like hunter-gatherers and very lightly settled areas than it does in later times. I dont think bottlenecks would be a major factor in the normal period associated with U106 and P312. What you can get is founder effects though when a tiny subset of a larger group moves for the first time into a new area and the subset is an atypical selection of the origin population. However, that is exactly what variance should be picking up.

Its pretty emphatic that U106 is much older in the NE of Europe than in Germany/Holland/Demark/England. It seems an open shut case.

...

In the variance you have an east (Estonia,Poland,Slovakia) to far flung west (Ireland) to east (Switzerland, Germany, Italy) to west (France, England) to east (Netherlands) to north (Denmark) movement. While you see the east to west movement as "pretty emphatic", I would describe it as "pretty erratic". Let's not forget that using U106 variance is like using P312-All, and certainly the P312-All variance differs when you break it out into U152, L21, etc.

Its pretty emphatic that U106 is much older in the NE of Europe than in Germany/Holland/Demark/England. It seems an open shut case.

...

In the variance you have an east (Estonia,Poland,Slovakia) to far flung west (Ireland) to east (Switzerland, Germany, Italy) to west (France, England) to east (Netherlands) to north (Denmark) movement. While you see the east to west movement as "pretty emphatic", I would describe it as "pretty erratic". Let's not forget that using U106 variance is like using P312-All, and certainly the P312-All variance differs when you break it out into U152, L21, etc.

Do we know if Polish U106 is a hodge-podge of different subclades?

I think France and Ireland can be completely ignored because of the tiny samples. In general though I think there is an old eastern block and a much younger western block (England, Holland and Denmark). In between is less tidy (and that will happen when modern national boundaries are used) but I suppose its central European. The important big contrast is between the Baltic at one end and the north Germanic zone at the other which is pretty massive. i take your point though that it does seems to imply that the clade may have entered central Europe before the late Holland/Denmark/England NW Germanic area. I dont find that too baffling as the Lusatian culture and allied cultures in the late Bronze Age did extend at some point into Slovakia, Czech and east and central Germany. So it did thrust into central Europe prior to any possible entry of elements from it into Jastorf culture. So, very broadly (and it is never going to be a perfect match after 1000s of years) the sequence of NE Europe-central Europe-NW Europe for U106 variance does fit fairly well with an origin in the Lusatian culture and the related House Urn culture.

Its pretty emphatic that U106 is much older in the NE of Europe than in Germany/Holland/Demark/England. It seems an open shut case.

...

In the variance you have an east (Estonia,Poland,Slovakia) to far flung west (Ireland) to east (Switzerland, Germany, Italy) to west (France, England) to east (Netherlands) to north (Denmark) movement. While you see the east to west movement as "pretty emphatic", I would describe it as "pretty erratic". Let's not forget that using U106 variance is like using P312-All, and certainly the P312-All variance differs when you break it out into U152, L21, etc.

Do we know if Polish U106 is a hodge-podge of different subclades?

I think France and Ireland can be completely ignored because of the tiny samples. In general though I think there is an old eastern block and a much younger western block (England, Holland and Denmark). In between is less tidy (and that will happen when modern national boundaries are used) but I suppose its central European. The important big contrast is between the Baltic at one end and the north Germanic zone at the other which is pretty massive. i take your point though that it does seems to imply that the clade may have entered central Europe before the late Holland/Denmark/England NW Germanic area. I dont find that too baffling as the Lusatian culture and allied cultures in the late Bronze Age did extend at some point into Slovakia, Czech and east and central Germany. So it did thrust into central Europe prior to any possible entry of elements from it into Jastorf culture. So, very broadly (and it is never going to be a perfect match after 1000s of years) the sequence of NE Europe-central Europe-NW Europe for U106 variance does fit fairly well with an origin in the Lusatian culture and the related House Urn culture.

While the Lusatian Culture fits nicely with the above variances, I don't think the above variances will stick in the long run. Copper Age Poland was probably as R1a+I2 heavy as it is today if we consider Corded Ware distribution. It would take a leap of 'variance' faith to then think that U106 would break away all on it's own a thousand years later only to come out stronger in an area coincidentally full of other L11 subclades. In my mind, central or northern Germany is probably the easternmost limit for U106's birth.

While the Lusatian Culture fits nicely with the above variances, I don't think the above variances will stick in the long run. Copper Age Poland was probably as R1a+I2 heavy as it is today if we consider Corded Ware distribution. It would take a leap of 'variance' faith to then think that U106 would break away all on it's own a thousand years later only to come out stronger in an area coincidentally full of other L11 subclades. In my mind, central or northern Germany is probably the easternmost limit for U106's birth.(Again, all based on gut feel)

Don't get me wrong, you may well be right. We are just speculating but why do you think it was a leap of faith for U106 to be part of a longer movement west, as we know it moved west and south into old Roman Empire and Gallic lands? There is pretty strong historic evidence of the Anglo-Saxon movements through Frisia and into England. There are some pretty strong alignments of Germanic languages and U106. There are legitimate hypotheses that pre-Germanic languages started far to the east of Germany and U106 is older than proto-Germanic speaking.

We might also consider it a leap of faith that U106 was held out of England and stopped firmly at Calais for a millennia. Instead, an easier explanation is that the historic period movements into England were just a latter phase of longer pre-Germanic and Germanic movements westward and southward.

As far as genetic STR diversity evidence goes, both academic (with their hopefully more representative data) as well as the long haplotype DNA project data indicate higher STR diversity to the east of German/Polish border. On the other hand, what genetic evidence is there that U106 was born in present day Germany?

Again, you may be right, but this is a crucial matter as has been pointed out for L11 as a whole. If U106 came from further east, the center of probability gravity for L11's launch point gets pulled further east (out of the Rhone/Rhine Valleys) with it.

The L11* MRCA for P312 and U106 was a single man. It is true he could have travelled wide and far in his lifetime, but I think it is more likely he was successful because he had the full logistical support of a colonization/settlement group with him. The early explorers, traders and trappers don't leave the mark the settlers do. Who would those colonizers/settlers be? Probably a lot of relatives, hence the real L11* TMRCA for U106/P312 was back home and several generations dead at the time of the colonizations. Maybe the actual progenitor was not even from Western Europe at all.

All good points Mike, but I can't really put my faith in variance that isn't at least three levels down from such a large group like U106 and especially not from academic studies with less than 20 or 30 samples. In fact, most papers don't even use those sample when they map the frequency. I know from using your P312 spreadsheet that the geographies dance all over the place the more you "peel back the onion".

All good points Mike, but I can't really put my faith in variance that isn't at least three levels down from such a large group like U106 and especially not from academic studies with less than 20 or 30 samples. In fact, most papers don't even use those sample when they map the frequency. I know from using your P312 spreadsheet that the geographies dance all over the place the more you "peel back the onion".

True, we need more long haplotypes from more places with more depth of SNP testing... .and unfortunately the academic studies just aren't there (and neither is the consumer database.) Also, has others have noted, these migrations and expansions in and through Europe were multi-directional, in fits and starts, and subject to wash-outs. Each subclade will have its own story as we peel the onion back.

There is no need for faith, though. This is just a discussion. My question is do you have other data or methodologies on which your hypothesis relies on? Lacking faith in variance doesn't mean we should put faith in frequency or not use genetic data at all. Frequency is not a good indicator of origin. Yes, it's true, diversity is a limited measurement also, but at least it is getting to the right point. Diversity builds up with generations, or time, and leaves a trail potentially backward in time. Frequency leaves trails but we have little idea how far backward in time they were left and which direction they were moving.

Somehow or another, a specific problem to resolve is how did U106's and P312's ancestral lineages come together in time and geography to the single L11* man that was their most recent common ancestor. That will line up with one more of these prehistoric cultures (or components of them) and will tell us today's majority paternal lineages populated Europe. We have enough data to say this probably happened relatively quickly.

U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.

Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.

Adding population bottlenecks to that as well, it would make the variance even less reliable?In fact i think every area used in these variance calculations should be investigated (in terms of known history) for repeated migrations like that and population bottlenecks. I guess it would be good to know which are more reliable in terms of variance. I don't know if this has already been done?

Yes, this is one of the main problems of variance calculations. I think one should look at a combination of the variance data, history, frequency to make predictions about where and when a haplogroup originated.

True, we need more long haplotypes from more places with more depth of SNP testing... .and unfortunately the academic studies just aren't there (and neither is the consumer database.) Also, has others have noted, these migrations and expansions in and through Europe were multi-directional, in fits and starts, and subject to wash-outs. Each subclade will have its own story as we peel the onion back.

There is no need for faith, though. This is just a discussion. My question is do you have other data or methodologies on which your hypothesis relies on? Lacking faith in variance doesn't mean we should put faith in frequency or not use genetic data at all. Frequency is not a good indicator of origin. Yes, it's true, diversity is a limited measurement also, but at least it is getting to the right point. Diversity builds up with generations, or time, and leaves a trail potentially backward in time. Frequency leaves trails but we have little idea how far backward in time they were left and which direction they were moving.

Somehow or another, a specific problem to resolve is how did U106's and P312's ancestral lineages come together in time and geography to the single L11* man that was their most recent common ancestor. That will line up with one more of these prehistoric cultures (or components of them) and will tell us today's majority paternal lineages populated Europe. We have enough data to say this probably happened relatively quickly.

No real data or methodologies, just the thought I posted before - that R1a and I2 have probably dominated Polish Y-DNA since at least Corded Ware and the likelihood of U106 developing there only to break free and coincidentally wind up in western Europe close to the rest of European L11 lineages takes a lot of explaining.

U106 is also older in Ireland. There must have been a migration from Eastern Europe in the early Bronze-Age.

Another possibility is that the repeated, known migrations of U106 to Ireland has driven the variance up there.

Adding population bottlenecks to that as well, it would make the variance even less reliable?In fact i think every area used in these variance calculations should be investigated (in terms of known history) for repeated migrations like that and population bottlenecks. I guess it would be good to know which are more reliable in terms of variance. I don't know if this has already been done?

Yes, this is one of the main problems of variance calculations. I think one should look at a combination of the variance data, history, frequency to make predictions about where and when a haplogroup originated.

I agree and disagree with the points here.

First, I definitely agree that we should look at all the information possible, subclade frequency (and at various levels), haplogroup and STR diversity (and at various levels including interclade relationships), archaeology, ancient DNA, mt DNA, autosomal DNA, linquistic information, known historical movements, even legends and folklore, etc., etc.

However, the different types of information provide different insights. Increasing frequency does not necessarily correlate with increasing time in a location, as we get back into early and prehistoric times. If we can correlate a subclade frequency, like U106, to Germanic languages (at least in a general way) and to Anglo-Saxon lands, then we can start the trail backward from there. In other words, frequency is helpful in determining the end of a trail and various correlations, not the beginning. In the case of U106, since there is some correlation with Germanic languages and since U106 is much older than proto-Germanic, then we can look backward in time at where pre-Germanic IE dialects are thought to come from. For this reason, I think we have to consider the Globular Amphora cultures with U106. Is modern frequency highest for U106 in Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States? No, but that means little for an ancient trail that was probably washed out by everything from the Huns (EDIT: I meant to indicate the Huns stirred up migrations, not that they directly intervened anywhere near the Baltic coasts) to the Slavic expansions. The higher diversity is therefore important in ancient expansions. That's the whole idea of the genetic molecular clock.

I don't see how bottlenecks are a big problem. The L11* TMRCA for U106/P312 might have survived a castrophic bottleneck for just be an early descendant of an L51 man, but the correlation of diversity and time back to this person doesn't change. The beauty of looking at diversity by subclade and then estimating interclade ages is that helps overcome some problems with missing branches in the Y DNA tree.

... just the thought I posted before - that R1a and I2 have probably dominated Polish Y-DNA since at least Corded Ware and the likelihood of U106 developing there only to break free and coincidentally wind up in western Europe close to the rest of European L11 lineages takes a lot of explaining.

I agree, this needs to be understood. I don't think it is hard to see how R1a and I2 could be dominant out in this area in modern time given the number of migrations that have occurred across the fairly easy to traverse northern plains of Europe. However, we do have Corded Ware R1a1 ancient DNA but no U106 so that may or may not mean a lot. I would suggest that Corded Ware is a very broad territory and should be considered an horizon rather than a culture. Just like Rhenish Bell Beaker folks may be different than Iberian Bell Beaker folks, there may be diversity within Corded Ware. It's big.

I'm not ruling out U106 coming from the L11* based from the Rhine/Rhone but I just think it is more likely to have come from a little further east, possibly the upper Danube, Hungarian plains, or even possibly just north or east of the Carpathians if that is where pre-Germanic came from.

This is off-topic, but I acknowledge that the easterly leaning in my thinking is influenced by the higher diversity of L23* in places like Anatolia to go with the high ratios of L23* to L11 types there. Perhaps L23*'s diversity is actually highest in Romania or the Balkans, but either way, we are not in Western Europe any more. I guess some would argue for Italy but I just don't think Impressed Wares and IE languages link up at all.

True, we need more long haplotypes from more places with more depth of SNP testing... .and unfortunately the academic studies just aren't there (and neither is the consumer database.) Also, has others have noted, these migrations and expansions in and through Europe were multi-directional, in fits and starts, and subject to wash-outs. Each subclade will have its own story as we peel the onion back.

There is no need for faith, though. This is just a discussion. My question is do you have other data or methodologies on which your hypothesis relies on? Lacking faith in variance doesn't mean we should put faith in frequency or not use genetic data at all. Frequency is not a good indicator of origin. Yes, it's true, diversity is a limited measurement also, but at least it is getting to the right point. Diversity builds up with generations, or time, and leaves a trail potentially backward in time. Frequency leaves trails but we have little idea how far backward in time they were left and which direction they were moving.

Somehow or another, a specific problem to resolve is how did U106's and P312's ancestral lineages come together in time and geography to the single L11* man that was their most recent common ancestor. That will line up with one more of these prehistoric cultures (or components of them) and will tell us today's majority paternal lineages populated Europe. We have enough data to say this probably happened relatively quickly.

No real data or methodologies, just the thought I posted before - that R1a and I2 have probably dominated Polish Y-DNA since at least Corded Ware and the likelihood of U106 developing there only to break free and coincidentally wind up in western Europe close to the rest of European L11 lineages takes a lot of explaining.

I suppose that begs the question about the variance of R1a and I2 in the Baltic. Is it old or is a lot of this down to Slavic expansions into this area. Is R1a in Poland older than U106. Does the variance indicate that U106 in the Baltic really was an island in a sea of R1a? I have no idea but I would appreciate any comment on this.

... that R1a and I2 have probably dominated Polish Y-DNA since at least Corded Ware

The Slavs were not involved in Corded Ware. The Slavs entered what is now Poland in the post-Roman period. So we are liable to see Slavic R1a and I2 from that period. The R1a in Corded Ware was presumably of earlier type. Though of course not tested for the SNPs available now, the scientists who found it matched it to Germanic haplotypes.

I knew my post would call you up! :) The problem with Underhill 2010 was that they used the "evolutionary effective" (!!) rate, which gives dates considerably too old. So although they actually discovered the Slavic marker R1a1a1g1 (M458), they failed to connect it with the Slavs. Woźniak 2010 set out to find a Slavic marker via haplotypes and realised just prior to publication that it matched M458. As Woźniak 2010 point out, the germline mutation rate better fits the archaeology. Looks like Woźniak has backtracked in the paper for which we only have the abstract, as it mentions "evolutionary age". Thrilling for you of course, but pretty silly from my point of view. Especially now when we are getting R1a1a split so neatly by the new SNPs. Not to mention the IBD results of Ralph and Coop 2012. Southeastern Europeans share large numbers of common ancestors which date to the Slavic expansions around 1,500 years ago.

But the new Woźniak paper certainly should be interesting for its analysis of mtDNA H5a, which appears to have spread with the Indo-Europeans. (The "evolutionary" estimate of its age is of course older that the estimate in Behar. We need not bother with that.)